Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recited “preferably ---” of claim 17 would be indefinite since it would be an expression of a range within a range.
The recited “the sixth residual stream” of claim 20 would lack an antecedent basis in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/086613 A1 (June 18, 2015) in view of WO 00/56693 A1 (Sep. 28, 2000).
WO’613 teaches improved process for producing polylactide in claims, Figure 1 (also see line 24 of page 6 to line 23 of page 7), lines 21-24 of page 6 and example 1. The process taught in the Figure 1 shows a first, second, third, a fourth and a fifth streams.
The instant process taught in a claim 1 and a Figure 1 is different from a Figure 1 taught by WO’613 in that it further shows additional steps of Concentration (100), Distillation (105) and Crystallization (110) (i.e., the recited steps a and b of the instant claim 1) in order to improve enantiometric purity from unwanted residual products and to reuse thereafter.
WO’693 teaches a method of valorization of an aqueous solution comprising 67.8 wt.% of lactic acid in order to selectively separate a fraction containing L- or D-lactic acid from a fraction comprising D- or L-lactic acid, said treatment comprising steps of concentration and distillation in an evaporator under operating conditions enabling to obtain a concentrated lactic acid solution having a content of monomeric lactic acid of 97.1 wt.% based on the concentrated lactic acid solution and crystallization of the concentrated lactic acid solution, thereby obtaining a crystallized lactic acid with a higher chiral purity and a mother liquid in Example 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the additional steps of Concentration (100), Distillation (105) and Crystallization (110) taught by WO’693 in WO’613 in order to improve enantiometric purity from unwanted residual products and to reuse thereafter absent showing otherwise.
Regarding claims 4-6, the process taught in the Figure 1 of WO’613 shows such steps.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, WO’693 teaches utilization of falling-film evaporators and/or thin film evaporators and a pressure of 100 to 500 mbar at a temperature of 50 to 70oC in line 31 of page 7 to line 5 of page 8.
Regarding claims 8-13, WO’613 teaches utilization of a pressure and temperature falling within scope of the instant invention and thus utilization of different pressure and temperature would be expected to yield different amounts of D-lactic acid and D-lactic acid esters and thus the recited amounts would have been obvious. It has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges would involve only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456 (CCPA 1955, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, WO’693 teaches 0.1 bar (100 mbar) and 120oC for a distillation in the example 1. WO’613 also teaches 0.1 to 1 bar and 60-150oC in a fourth paragraph of page 5.
Regarding claim 16, WO’693 teaches cooling for the crystallization in the example 1.
Regarding claim 17, WO’693 teaches utilization of a laboratory centrifuge in the Example 1.
Regarding claim 18, WO’693 teaches 91.8 wt.% of lactic acid after crystallization in the Example 1.
Regarding claim 19, WO’693 teaches 91.8 wt.% of lactic acid after crystallization in the Example 1 and thus utilization of a high purity lactic acid for obtaining a polylactic acid would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, the lactide and the lactic acid obtained from the hydrolysis step
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/086613 A1 (June 18, 2015) in view of WO 00/56693 A1 (Sep. 28, 2000) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4-20 above, and further in view of Coszach et al. (US 2006/0014975 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Coszach et al. that the liquid prepurified lactide (equivalent to lactide purification (5) taught in the Figure 1 of WO’613) is fed via the line 911 to a melt recrystallization unit 600 where the purification is carried out in one or more steps according to a static and/or dynamic process, so as to recover a pure lactide in liquid form yielding two types of residues which are further separated in [0149].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the additional steps of the prepurification, melt recrystallization and separation taught by Coszach et al. in WO’613 and WO’693 thereof in order to provide purer lactide for polymerization yielding a higher yield absent showing otherwise. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/086613 A1 (June 18, 2015) in view of WO 00/56693 A1 (Sep. 28, 2000) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4-20 above, and further in view of CA 3053979 A1 (Sep. 13, 2018, published as WO 2018/165283 A1).
Regarding claim 20 reciting a synthesis of molecules insensitive to the optical isometry D or L, para. [0100] of the instant specification teaches that the molecules insensitive to the optical isometry D or L Include acrylic acid.
CA teaches acrylic acid obtained from lactic acid or lactide in abstract and pages 2-4 (Summary of the Invention) in WO’283.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention further to utilize the concentrated lactic acid taught by WO’613 and WO’693 for obtaining the acrylic acid taught by CA since utilization of lactic acid or lactide for obtaining the acrylic acid is known as taught by CA absent showing otherwise.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE H YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights